ArticlePloS one2023
Internal incentives for carbon emission reduction in a capital-constrained supply chain: A financial perspective.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Capital constraints hinder enterprises' carbon reduction efforts and affect the sustainability of the supply chain. To alleviate this limitation, the core enterprise considers offering two financial-based carbon reduction incentive mechanisms: cost-sharing mechanism (CS) and preferential financing mechanism (PF). In a supply chain with the dual sensitivity of market demand to price and carbon reduction, we model each incentive mechanism, discussing their impact, value, and selection strategies. The results show that neither party under CS pursues an excessively high share ratio. Only a below-threshold sharing ratio can promote the supplier's carbon reduction behavior and improve efficiency for both parties. Conversely, PF has a stable incentive effect on the supplier's carbon reduction behavior and can effectively increase the retailer's profits. However, a reasonable carbon reduction standard is needed to attract the supplier. In addition, as market demand becomes more sensitive to carbon reduction, the feasible range of CS narrows and that of PF expands. We compare players' preferences of PF and CS and find a Pareto region in which all players prefer PF to CS. Finally, we test the robustness of our findings by an extending model. Our study provides guidance for supply chain decisions facing dual pressures of financial constraints and carbon reduction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.